Thursday, November 3, 2016

Joe Sage Linda Kasabian's former mentor






The article has been reformatted from this page of the Berkeley Barb.
The reporter or perhaps Joe Sage got the year when Linda came to him in Taos wrong, it of course should have read 1969.








16 comments:

St Circumstance said...

I don't believe I buy this.... How hard would the girls have had to worked to keep up with this guy, and why would they? He had a very minor part. Plus during those years, the girls were mostly scrambling about themselves- it just doesn't make sense that they would be spending the kind of effort and time that stalking a guy around the country under assumed names would require.... they had no internet or online help back then remember... it would have to be time consuming old fashioned investigating and tracking..

Do not know for sure- but I don't think I buy this guy :)

Zdena Gaarova said...

Sandra Good maybe. In 2011 she seemed to be still loyal to Charlie. On this website in 2011 (I quote):
"Speaking of Grandma
I give you- Sandra "Blue" Good and her man, George circa 2010. Another member turned Grandma. She really does look like someones Grandma all happy gardening. I dunno, all I can think of is the threats and hatred she spewed for years. Lets put two myths to rest shall we?
Yes Sandy and George are still together. Yes they are still loyal to Charlie, but not as hard core. I talk to people who speak with them. Once word got out that Lynn was soon to be released from "the clink" ( as my mom called it) the reporters would NOT leave them alone. They had to go underground again."
And what about Lynn Fromme? She is out 2009 something....

St Circumstance said...

How about it George? Are you reading today lol? wanna help out? IF you know...

Did Sandy or Lynn stalk this poor sucker around the country for being nice to Linda?

;)

St Circumstance said...

What is really more scary of a thought to me is the AB...

I admit I know nothing at all about them, but I was watching a documentary the other night about the AB and Manson came up for a bit during the two hour show. According to what I watched- the ABrotherhood came into full bloom in the California Prison System. I have read a little about Charlies connection to AB but this was the most detail I had ever heard. They made the case that Charlie tried to join for protection, but they rejected him. It said what the AB did do though was make some trades with Charlie in which Charlies Girls were sneaking in weapons in there underwear and private areas to the AB members in the visiting areas...

Now that is much more believable to me (As I know that Nancy, at least, was later connected to some members) and if true resulted in actual violence and possible deaths.

I am not sure this guy was ever in any real danger at all?

The girls visiting the jails where Charlie was sneaking things in= maybe

The girls running around the country to locate and phone stalk a guy they never met who had very little to do with anything that could hurt or help Charlie= maybe not

Dreath said...

Saint,

I tend to agree with you on this one.

If someone found his number to call him maybe he shouldn't put the phone in is real name, just a thought.

Heck, maybe they were reporters calling to get a comment, strange the calls correspond to the trial and the book release. "Are you the Joe Sage who helped Linda Kasabian?" [click] "Odd, he hung up."

The author should have done a little fact checking too or maybe Sage's memory was going:

August 1970- Kasabian came to Taos?
December 1970- Kasabian retrieved her child and turned herself in?
Kasabian's mom's attorney was in New Jersey?

And in the next line gets her place of surrender right: Concord, New Hampshire- that might have led someone to maybe put 2 and 2 together.

Matt said...

I have to throw my lot in with Saint as well. He was running from something, but it wasn't any Manson girls. They were bright, but not seasoned private detectives.


St Circumstance said...

Dreath my man... who says he was putting any phones in his name in any of these places?

I am not sure how anyone could have found him back then if he was moving from place to place and using different name? Family, Reporter or anyone else. It would strike me as natural if he felt this way- he wouldn't put anything in his name??

If it weren't for Facebook- half the people I grew up with would be gone forever, and we all had cell phones- it was still impossible to keep track over the years- changing addresses and numbers. not sure how you do it with no internet or cell devices? This was a guy on the move they never met...

It seems to me pretty easy to get lost in this country in the 70's if you wanted to...

But who knows? I was a tot in the 70's lol

Shorty's pistols said...

Many who post on here have pretty finely calibrated BS detectors. Mine went off on the article. Joe tells a tale with a lot of details incorrect. In the timeframe he's discussing, The "Manson Girls" didn't have the time or the resources to rag on Joe Sage.

There were other posts on the internet that suggest Joe may have had reason to keep moving and fear threats. A female that was familiar with Sage in communes located in Taos, NM and Tucson AZ paints a little different portrait of Joe. She characterized him as a sexual predator that imposed himself on very young girls in both places. She also stated he could be a tyrant who harmed people with his way out ideas of diet and medicine. Her final analysis of Sage was that he was a charlatan.

A guy like that may well have received a few threatening phone calls, etc. He also would have good reason to be fearful and keep moving. But all those threats probably didn't come from Lynn, Sandy, and the girls. They had their own problems.

Sage was reported as dead, passing away in So Cal in Feb 1996, two days after his 78th birthday.

Manson Mythos said...

People love to tell stories. Being stalked by those crazy knife wielding Manson girls who are trained to kill on command makes for good story telling and the 15 minutes of fame Warhol said we'd all get.

The fact he tries to make himself a key player (the man who helped Linda) should be a red flag with this guy. If the case was never solved, I firmly believe Linda would have never came forward and would have been content with keeping her secret shrouded in a cloud of meth smoke till the day she died.

DebS said...

Joe Sage did have his name and address in the 1969-1970 San Francisco Polk's Directory. He was listed as Rev. Joseph Sage Good Karma Café 501 Delores St., this is in the Mission district of SF. By 1971 there was another person listed as being at the Good Karma Café.

As for the Joe Sage that died in 1996. He was born Feb. 22, 1918 in Michigan and died Feb. 24, 1996 in Oceanside CA. From the time he was born until he entered the service he lived in Michigan.

Records at Ancestry show that he enlisted in the service Jan 1, 1942 and served until Jan. 1, 1962, so he was a lifer. His wife was Emilia Agune White and she was born in Guam. She died in Oceanside in 1990. So, I don't think that this is the correct Joe Sage if any of the "bio" in the Barb is correct.

I was able to find a Joseph H Sage, born in 1922, in the military archives that might be the right one though he was not a pilot, it looks like he was in the reserves actually. He was the only one I could find that was from Idaho, however I wasn't able to find this guy at Ancestry.

I think that Joe Sage might have been a made up name just to make himself sound like he was Native American, he claimed he was 1/2 Blackfoot but I could not find him on any Indian Rolls.

This is what I found at the military archives.

Field Title

Value

Meaning

ARMY SERIAL NUMBER 19033599 19033599
NAME SAGE#JOSEPH#H########### SAGE#JOSEPH#H###########
RESIDENCE: STATE 97 WASHINGTON
RESIDENCE: COUNTY 063 SPOKANE
PLACE OF ENLISTMENT 9783 GEIGER FIELD SPOKANE WASHINGTON
DATE OF ENLISTMENT DAY 24 24
DATE OF ENLISTMENT MONTH 07 07
DATE OF ENLISTMENT YEAR 42 42
GRADE: ALPHA DESIGNATION PVT# Private
GRADE: CODE 8 Private
BRANCH: ALPHA DESIGNATION AC# Air Corps
BRANCH: CODE 20 Air Corps
EDUC. SPEC. ## ##
DEFER. DATE MONTH 09 09
DEFER. DATE YEAR 93 93
SOURCE OF ARMY PERSONNEL 0 Civil Life
NATIVITY 92 IDAHO
YEAR OF BIRTH 22 22
RACE AND CITIZENSHIP 1 White, citizen
EDUCATION 4 4 years of high school
CIVILIAN OCCUPATION 736 Semiskilled chauffeurs and drivers, bus, taxi, truck, and tractor
MARITAL STATUS 6 Single, without dependents
COMPONENT OF THE ARMY 3 Reserves - exclusive of Regular Army Reserve and Officers of the Officers Reserve Corps on active duty under the Thomason Act (Officers and Enlisted Men -- O.R.C. and E.R.C., and Nurses-Reserve Status)
BOX NUMBER 0302 0302
FILM REEL NUMBER 3.24# 3.24#

St Circumstance said...

Deb as always you amaze me for the attention to detail lol :)

grimtraveller said...

Linda actually testified that Sage wanted her to become his woman and live with him and for a short period, she did.
In the Judge's chambers, Kanarek dropped some hints or accusations that the two of them were sexually involved and he really questioned her at some length about Joe Sage, how he came into the picture, what he represented, what he wanted.
I have to say, I was really surprised !
Up until I was reading Linda's testimony on Cat's site, Joe Sage was merely the guy in "Helter Skelter" that she runs to for help, the guy that phones Charlie and asks him if Linda's tales of murder were true and the guy who kindly gave her Gary Fleischmann's name and the money to get to LA so she find Tanya. It was actually during the call to Spahn at Sage's that she learned about the August 16th raid and Tanya being taken into care.
But Linda's testimony presents Joe Sage as a bit of a dirty old man on the make for young girl hippie flesh although it's not her intention because, like much of her story, she presents these really seedy and sleazy actions as being completely normal and "what's the fuss about ?" That Sage wanted to go off with Linda as his doxy rather than being the knight in shining armour might actually be one of the reasons he wasn't called as a witness, because he and Jeffrey Jacobs, that director that he talks about that also heard her story, would have been powerful corroboration of her testimony.
As an aside, Linda testified that she didn't know about the death of the LaBiancas until October ! So it was the Cielo murders that Joe Sage was told about.

grimtraveller said...

Off topic but sort of connected, when we ponder as to why the actual HS murders didn't carry on beyond the 10th, there's a sequence of events that might partly explain that. There was a lot going on from Bobby's arrest on the 6th, Sandy & Mary's arrests on the 8th, the murders stretching the 8th~10th, Tex's supposed tale to Charlie of the FBI looking for him in connection with a murder, Linda's disappearance on the 12th or 13th, the Straight Satans coming up to get DeCarlo on the 15th, the raid on the 16th and Joe Sage phoning shortly after they'd been released after the raid to ask Charlie if Linda was telling the truth and Pat {if it was her} berating her for opening her mouth to outsiders....
Just a thought.

Dreath said...

Grim said: "because he and Jeffrey Jacobs, that director that he talks about that also heard her story, would have been powerful corroboration of her testimony."

Sorry, Grim, I have to take exception with that.

"Linda Kasabian told me".....would be hearsay and inadmissible. Now they could try to get around the hearsay issue by saying its an admission (a statement against interest) as Kasabian was technically not granted immunity until after she testified if I recall correctly but that would be a very risky approach and might lead to a reversal on appeal as she also 'technically' should have been given her grant before she testified (which was an issue on appeal- and is part of how Brunner kept hers).

Even if you could avoid the hearsay rule, at least where I am it would also likely be 'vouching' and would be objected to on that basis since all you are really doing is having someone repeat her story to add weight to it's truth. In fact if Kanarak missed that one the judge should strike the testimony on his own 'sua sponte' as it is called. Further, if Bugliosi offered the evidence and went down the road a bit too far 'did you believe her?' that comes very close to a basis for a mistrial and if the witness blurts it out he might still have a problem (i.e.: Nixon says Manson guilty).

It is also not relevant- Kasabian can tell her own story. Sage's testimony adds nothing unless it is used to enhance her credibility and that takes us back to 'vouching'.

Corroboration needs to come from somewhere other then the witness- Flynn (I think it was) seeing them all drive away corroborates Kasabian's testimony about who was in the car, which car, who was driving and when they left.

grimtraveller said...

Dreath said...

"Linda Kasabian told me".....would be hearsay and inadmissible....etc

Interesting......
Would the same not apply to what she said Charlie or Tex said to her ?
I take your point about Sage & Jacobs and stand corrected. It explains why they weren't called, anyway.

Dreath said...

Grim,

Tex and Charlie- maybe (and some should have been). It is an exception to the hearsay rule for statements against your penal interest (admissions). Compare: "Manson told me to wash the cloths." Hearsay. "Manson told me to get a knife and a change of cloths." Not hearsay...but not as to everyone. That is when those odd objections start happening "Hearsay as to Atkins." "Hearsay as to Krenwinkel." because the statement by say Watson that are against his 'penal' interest are not necessarily admissible against say, Van Houten but are against Watson.

Which is why the 'joint defense' was the stupidest move Manson made. As an old professor of mine was fond of saying: "once the cat's pissed in the milk it's awful hard to skim the cream." 'The jury will disregard this statement as to defendant, Atkins.....is one of the most asinine opening lines a court can make. 'Sure, we'll go ahead and pretend we didn't hear that as to her'.

Didn't mean to try to 'correct' you- the line is taken from the movie Fargo: "I have to take exception with your police work there....". I meant it humorously. Please take no offense. This points out why representing yourself is a mistake: these rules.

And just so you know- someone could chime in and argue with me it's not hearsay and we could go back and forth quite a while.